I definitely agree with your comment about competition though there are times when it makes sense for MLSs, once separate, to join on a common platform. When and if that is needed in any given area I would encourage any MLS to look at all options including those mentioned above as well the rest, such as FBS and the other solid vendors.

As I stated in an earlier WAV Group blog post, I think the big MLSs in CA have proven they are getting the job done so I don’t expect them to change course in the near term…no upside for them at all. On the other hand, I would expect if Concentric proves they have a stable solution that they will get a look and evaluation just like any other vendors but that will take time….with the added complication that going with them via calREDD is not a simple client vendor relationship.

The object of the conversation that seems to be missing from the banter among C.A.R. Association Directors is the notion that that the local MLS goes away. What we hear and read focuses on “statewide data” or “cool MLS system.” calREDD goes way beyond data sharing or an MLS system – it is Governance, Operations, Services, and System.

There are more small associations that are perhaps more likely to benefit from Operational, Service and Governance than large regional MLSs.

Though there can be economies of scale for larger MLSs on software license acquisitions, I challenge the general proposition that out-of-pocket costs for brokers/agents is less for larger MLSs than smaller ones. I’d love to see the hard data on that. Especially when one considers giving up the responsiveness of local MLSs for the bureaucracy of a one-size-fits-all solution, the cost-benefit analysis goes far deeper than a software license. Hosting and support costs do not get dramatically less as you add more members, and most MLS vendors today are already spreading those costs through unified data centers more than even the largest regional MLSs.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the cost savings for any MLS in considering regional solutions depends on the overlap with other MLSs and whether duplicate fees, entry, etc., exist. If there isn’t overlap, there likely isn’t going to be any cost savings either, regardless of the scale.

Also, given that calREDD hasn’t achieved wide adoption, each MLS will have to consider whether they will get the regional partnerships they need. Further, if the MLSs are going to regionalize, they could do so with any vendor and so should consider all potential solutions.

I realize I’m biased in this discussion but I think there’s too much danger from generic statements like those in the comments above leading MLSs to believe they don’t have a choice and it will be cheaper and better without evaluating their options. Competition is what produces efficiency and lowest cost over the long run, not going with a single vendor.

This fee benefit to small MLS is exacerbated when you consider that the pricing discounts extend across all services purchased by the small MLS – Tax, Mapping, Data Compliance and other third party applications.<<

I'd love to see the actual data for this. You know, real, hard data as opposed to off-hand supposition. I have pretty intimate familiarity with the costs of running MLS systems along all the lines you mention, and if we were able to see the data on which you make your claim, I think we'd quickly find the out of pocket costs to the agent are not dramatically, if at all, lower for larger versus smaller MLSs. But we need to make sure you're comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

As I said before, I believe the issue for the smaller MLSs is whether they have overlap with other markets. That's where cost savings may occur, by elimination of duplicate fees, entry, etc. If overlap is not involved, I would like to see real numbers showing out-of-pocket cost differences to the agent.

Also, given the lack of traction developed by calREDD to date, each MLS needs to figure out if their neighbors are going to be joining and, if they're doing that, they can just as well consider all vendors instead of just one, because any vendor can provide the regionalization desired if the MLSs are intent to combine anyway.

This fee benefit to small MLS is exacerbated when you consider that the pricing discounts extend across all services purchased by the small MLS – Tax, Mapping, Data Compliance and other third party applications.<<

I'd love to see the actual data for this. You know, real, hard data as opposed to off-hand supposition. I have pretty intimate familiarity with the costs of running MLS systems along all the lines you mention, and if we were able to see the data on which you make your claim, I think we'd quickly find the out of pocket costs to the agent are not dramatically, if at all, lower for larger versus smaller MLSs. But we need to make sure you're comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

As I said before, I believe the issue for the smaller MLSs is whether they have overlap with other markets. That's where cost savings may occur, by elimination of duplicate fees, entry, etc. If overlap is not involved, I would like to see real numbers showing out-of-pocket cost differences to the agent.